New Connecticut law requires transparency in foundation work

It is a tradition dating back to the earliest edifices in America, the cornerstone inscription of the year a building was constructed.

Going forward in Connecticut, builders can add the signature of the entities that poured the foundation — figuratively, anyway.

Under a new state law that takes effect in October, municipalities may only issue a certificate of occupancy for a new structure — commercial or residential — after collecting the identities of the concrete supplier and the subcontractor that poured the foundation.

The law is intended to give property owners and insurance companies recourse to chase down anyone responsible for shoddy work or materials requiring expensive repairs down the road. It comes in the wake of hundreds of homeowners in Eastern Connecticut who traced cracking and crumbling in their foundations to a single contractor’s use of a crushed stone additive that included a mineral that can degrade concrete over time. That contractor testified in support of new rules this past winter, and maintained that many of the problems could have been prevented by better installation techniques, adding that the state should require licensing of installers and mandate inspections at construction sites.

The Connecticut Attorney General’s office and the Department of Consumer Protection have been investigating the issue, primarily in instances involving homes, with nearly 30 subpoenas issued to insurance companies seeking information. The Connecticut Insurance Department last year issued a directive prohibiting carriers from canceling or failing to renew a policy as a result of a crumbling or otherwise defective foundation. The state has information online for property owners at www.ct.gov/dcp or by calling 1-800-203-3447.

The original bill omitted concrete suppliers from the requirement, which legislators added after testimony from the Home Builders and Remodelers Association of Connecticut signaled its opposition on grounds that any names put on the record should be the entity that supplied the concrete, not just the contractors that installed the foundation.

“Foundation pours are done and have been done the same way … across many states,” said Bill Ethier, CEO of the Home Builders and Remodelers Association of Connecticut. “If it was the result of how home foundation pours are performed, there would be ample evidence of crumbling concrete issues virtually everywhere. Yet there is no evidence of which we are aware that such issues are occurring beyond certain geographic areas of Connecticut … and further, beyond those pours that used a particular company’s concrete.”

Still, a Willington construction engineer named Ralph Tulis noted contractors can err in the amount of water they add in an effort to ensure a smooth fill in the narrow eight-to-10 inches allotted for most residential pours. Tulis suggested going further to require batch tickets and placement dates for each element of a foundation, records on any additives on site and records of subsequent backfilling against a foundation.

“From where I sit, I view the building's foundation as the most important part of a structure,” Tulis testified in February. “You only get one shot to get it right as it's not easily reconstructed at some future point in time. Walls above grade can be modified ... but foundations are a whole other matter.”